dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7
share rss forum feed


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26
reply to Janemba

Re: 37% Ultra 100 Price increase??

No matter what the price is for the max plan, I wouldn't pay that even if I was millionaire! That is just plain asinine! I don't care how many kids, computers, or other gadgets you have!

Of course I just described Charter's current status in that one word, asinine!!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

senseotech

join:2011-12-12
Good for you that you wouldn't pay it, but to call me asinine because I find value and use in it? Thanks for assuming you represent the maximum usage of everyone everywhere. Did you hear that everyone? Cork1958 says 100meg is asinine, lets just stop advancing network technologies since no one needs or wants that speed.
Expand your moderator at work


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to senseotech

Re: 37% Ultra 100 Price increase??

said by senseotech:

Good for you that you wouldn't pay it, but to call me asinine because I find value and use in it? Thanks for assuming you represent the maximum usage of everyone everywhere. Did you hear that everyone? Cork1958 says 100meg is asinine, lets just stop advancing network technologies since no one needs or wants that speed.

I am not fundamentally opposed to 100 Mbps Internet; but I am practically disinclined to spend even $50 a month for Internet. I would prefer to pay $19.98 for 4.9 Mbps over paying $110 for 100 Mbps; or even $50 for 30 Mbps.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

15444104
Premium
join:2012-06-11
NormanS:

You reflect my views as well. I think that most consumers don't even realize that you don't need more than 30mb to stream live reasonable quality HD video...all they know is that marketing departments from various service providers tell them that the faster, the better. They do no research themselves.

Uninformed consumers make it difficult for those who are informed to get reasonably priced service.

My experience is that lowest ping times are more critical for a better internet experience than faster speeds.


msmisfit

join:2004-09-13
Lawrenceville, GA
kudos:2
They can do all the research they want to get "informed", but it isn't going to do any good, if there is no competition in their local area.

DSL to me is not competition.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by msmisfit:

DSL to me is not competition.

If you are stuck with IFITL, or 1.5 Mbps, tops, from AT&T, I'd agree.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Ryan818

join:2006-12-14
Medford, OR
What it all comes down to is that Charter is too greedy to offer a lower speed tier to their internet packages. They also penalize the customers who only want to have internet and not bundle TV and phone. In general things were much better before the new management took over and increased prices and cut services all across the board. Why not got back to the days when they at least offered 4 distinct internet packages that suited all walks of internet users. I tried the 100/5 package for about 3 months and found that it was overkill for me. I also could never achieve the advertised speeds due to oversaturated nodes in my neighborhood. It was not a good value given that I couldn't achieve even 70% of advertised speeds.


msmisfit

join:2004-09-13
Lawrenceville, GA
kudos:2
reply to NormanS
That's it in my subdivision...IFITL. No U-verse coming here, if that's any better.

Besides, Charter reliability would have to suffer VERY badly for me to go back to AT&T. I had horrible service experiences with AT&T; just the opposite of what the BellSouth teleco experience had been for years.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
In my case, SBC was an improvement over Pacific Bell (one of two ILEC companies under The Pacific Telesis Group; bought by SBC in 1996). Prices went to Hell after SBC/AT&T bought Bellsouth; they started jacking legacy SBC prices up to the legacy Bellsouth levels.

Still, DSL is competitive in the S.F. Bay Area. Our MSO is Comcast, whose prices run higher than the other MSOs. And I found the AT&T 3.0 Mbps tier to be a reasonable compromise of cost vs. speed, even at BS price levels, when compared with Comcast. Plus we have at least two DSL CLECs with decent tiers for the price.

BTW, I fired them, and hired Sonic.net, LLC because of cap-and-overage; low-cost ($19.98 for the data line item), moderately high speed (4.9 Mbps on the loop AT&T would only offer 3.0 meg service on) was a bonus.

Because Comcast isn't in a solid monopolistic position here, they do have a low-end retention tier called, "Economy". DSL speed for near DSL price. I am reasonably sure they'd rather not have their users on that tier, but with DSL providers offering decent plans, plus a couple of very small FTTP providers, it gives them a chance to keep customers.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


cork1958
Cork
Premium
join:2000-02-26

1 edit
Comcast also has that "economy" tier here. Comcast is just outside the village limits of where I live (3 houses down)

As much as I don't like Comcast crap, I'm glad to have Charter here in the village. I've said it before though that I've NEVER had an issue with Charter's internet or tv even, except for the brain dead way they seem to want to run the business!

Glad to hear that you actually stopped and did the math on the yearly costs of the "little" difference in price between the ultra and the other tier. Makes it sound a little different that way, doesn't it?!

said by mbreslin:

Price increases always suck.

That said I generally get 100/5 even during peak hours so I'm reasonably happy with charter the last couple years. As for the overall price, in 1993 when dsl was just rolling out in our area (and no cable internet at all yet) I begged for someone to come along and take my money and give me decent speeds in return.

Unless charter goes belly up and I have to move to slower u-verse I'm never going backward in speed, price be damned.

And before someone says it's "asinine" or "sad", trust me, I'm not sad.

Nor is Charter sad! Keep handing them that money!!

said by Dogg:

said by KoRnGtL15:

I want to do the same. But, as I said before. If I ever want to get the service again in the future. I am not willing to pay the $200 activation fee for them just to hit the switch. The new speed increases have to be coming soon. It usually a annual thing. I cant see them raising the rates just because and not give a upgrade.

Make the change at your local office. They can put a note on your account that you have (had) the 100M package before the policy change. Thus if you want to switch back, you will not be charged the activation fee.

I wouldn't trust Charter on that one in a million years even it was put down in writing!
--
The Firefox alternative.
»www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/